Submit Comments to Support Elimination of the 2% by Nov. 26th

Please take 5 minutes and send in comments urging elimination of what is known as the 2% Assessment.

COPAA submitted
comments in support of the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which will amend current §§ 200.1 and 200.6
to eliminate a State’s ability to define modified academic achievement
standards for certain students with disabilities; develop and administer
alternate assessments based on those standards; and, subject to limitations on
the number of proficient scores that may be counted for AYP purposes under
current § 200.13(c), use the scores from those alternate assessments in AYP
calculations. This regulation has been of significant concern to
COPAA since it was enacted in 2007.

COPAA
members are unfortunately all too familiar with the negative impact this policy has
had on certain students’ opportunities to maintain access to the general
curriculum, be taught in the regular classroom and achieve a regular
diploma.

By issuing this NPRM, the U.S.
Department of Education is supporting not only the rights of students with
disabilities to participate and make progress in the general curriculum with
their peers, but also that assessment decisions must help drive the instruction
and supports provided to assure positive outcomes for these students.

COPAA especially appreciates that the NPRM
reiterates the direct connection of the revised Title I policy to the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and clarifies:
…the transition from alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement standards under Title I of the ESEA also would
apply to how States include children with disabilities in these assessments
under the IDEA.

For these reasons COPAA
wholeheartedly supports the NPRM and believes the Department is taking a much
needed positive step toward assuring all students are expected to and taught to
achieve grade level standards with their peers.

To underscore the
need to remove the "2%” regulation we point to data recently published in an
article in the Huffington Post by Todd Grindal, Laura Schifter and Thomas
Hehir:

"Since
2007, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has permitted school districts to
hide the performance of up to two percent of students (or approximately 20% of
students with disabilities) by allowing students with disabilities to be
measured using substantially less challenging assessments. This provision,
referred to by education policy wonks as the "2% rule" encourages
inappropriate referrals to special education, paints an inaccurate picture of
school performance, and, worst of all, reinforces stereotypes that students
with disabilities cannot succeed in school.”
Furthermore, and most
concerning:
"A
growing body of research suggests that the 2% rule has had damaging
consequences. We examined data from the Houston Independent School District and
found that more than half of the students who were measured using these
assessments were students who were diagnosed with "learning disabilities"
such as dyslexia rather than students who had the sorts of significant
cognitive impairments that might impede them from completing a standard
assessment. Even more disturbingly, we found that African American students
with learning disabilities were up to six times more likely to be assessed on
these low-rigor tests than were similar Caucasian or Latino students with
learning disabilities. In other work, researchers found that some students were
included in this easier assessment even though they scored proficient on the
regular assessment in the prior year. Research out of California suggests that
the 2% rule led to an inflation of schools' ratings. In 2012, approximately
210,000 California students (5% of all students and nearly 50% of all students
with disabilities) took the California Modified Assessment. In some California
districts, as many as 76% of students with disabilities were assessed using
this easier assessment. These data demonstrate that the use of these
assessments far exceed the intended use, provide inaccurate pictures of school
performance as well as inappropriately low expectations for poor and minority
students--the students that NCLB is intended to protect.” [1]

Data shows that the incidence of
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, the students who are
currently supposed to take the AA-AAAS, is no more than 0.5%. The proficiency rate for students who take the
AA-AAAS is
currently far higher than it is for students
with disabilities in other assessments, which has created an incentive to place students in an AA-AAAS."

As Secretary Duncan stated before the American Association of People with
Disabilities in March of 2011 -- "the 2 percent rule obscures an accurate
portrait of the academic needs of America's students with disabilities.”
Students with
disabilities, including those with intellectual disabilities, must have access
to grade-level general education curriculum and must be expected to demonstrate
achievement on the academic content standards set forth by their state."

The Department needs to hear from as many people as possible in
support of this elimination! The comment period has been re-opened
until Tomorrow, Nov 26th. Every letter is being counted - so send one
in today!

Comments...

If the arbitrary lowering of standards was tied to race or gender, regardless of the ability of the particular student to learn the curriculum with appropriate instruction, this might be clearer for the administration to see. As it is, the administration's overall dismissal of citizens with disabilities has obscured their vision in this area.

This is a way for schools to bow out of the sense of urgency they should be feeling to teach children with special needs to read, write and do mathematical computations necessary to be able to lead self sufficient and productive lives.